The Undergraduate Student Government’s 2025-26 elections recently wrapped up with candidates Mikaela Bautista and Emma Fallon emerging as the winning president and vice president after receiving 36.7% of ranked-choice votes. Meanwhile, following a USG judicial council opinion Feb. 20 disqualifying senatorial candidate Mason Yonover, all 12 remaining senatorial candidates were elected into office by default.

I sincerely hope USG’s newly elected officials take their responsibilities seriously and commit to creating a better USC for us all. However, knowing that the next era of senate members were not elected by virtue of students’ votes disappoints and disheartens me with USG’s election process.  

Some students may feel this senatorial result is inconsequential but I believe this outlook undervalues the importance of campus leadership which genuinely promotes students’ priorities. 

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

When done right, elected USG members can drive legitimate progress. For example, last October, USG senators passed Senate Bill 114-12 which called on the University to add a sustainability training module requirement for USC students. This bill signifies a step in the right direction by supporting a more environmentally-conscious campus culture.

USG acknowledges the need to improve USC by representing undergraduate students. On their website, USG claims its goal is to enhance the undergraduate experience and characterizes itself as “Your student government.” 

Yet it doesn’t feel very much like our student government when the votes we cast for senators didn’t even end up mattering. 

Of course, this isn’t to blame USG’s judicial committee for the unavoidable ramifications of its decision. Still, the fact that disqualifying a single candidate made all the remaining candidates literal shoo-ins for their positions sheds light on deeper issues underlying USG’s elections. 

Unlike the presidential and vice presidential candidates, who must earn at least 50% of remaining votes, USG has no set quota for the percentage of votes senatorial candidates must garner. This means that senators can get elected even if they receive a very minimal vote percentage. 

In this latest election, only four senatorial candidates secured more than 25% of the votes. Most of the senatorial candidates receiving less than a quarter of the votes puts their ability to bring about the changes students want into question, if not deeming it absent altogether.  

Another notable quality is that the senatorial electoral process didn’t include ranked-choice voting despite how it could have allowed candidates to receive a higher percentage of the votes. This is in contrast to the presidential race wherein ranked-choice voting was utilized.

Chief justice Susanna Andryan wrote in a statement that USG did not implement ranked-choice voting for senatorial candidates because “… it may be overwhelming to rank 12.”

I understand wanting to make voting easy, but this logic voting feels arbitrary. Needing to mark a few more responses on a form is unlikely to negatively impact students’ overall voting experience. In fact, it could be the much-needed remedy for students’ political apathy. 

In a post-election briefing, USG revealed that only about 18% of the student body voted in this election — an over 15% decrease in voter turnout from last year. 

While adding ranked choice voting for senatorial candidates may not be the perfect fix to students’ indifference, it could allow senatorial candidate ballots to near majorities more often. This would promote more representation in the senate, possibly increasing students’ sense that their votes are meaningful. 

Moreover, it’s important to consider that the 12-senator system itself can be amended. 

Two heads are supposedly better than one but quality over quantity is nonetheless crucial. I know that, personally, I would much rather have a few senators who actualize the changes the student body wants than a lot of senators who don’t stand for the student body’s goals. 

As things currently stand, trying to fill 12 seats at the senate table doesn’t seem to be improving representation or policy, especially when barely enough students are running to fill those seats in the first place. 

Consequently, USG should reduce its number of senate seats and alter its system to better guarantee representation of diverse perspectives. On the implementation level, this could look like an eight-seat senate with two seats allotted to students of each undergraduate grade level. This new system would support USG in prioritizing representation of a variety of student ideals within the senate, ultimately creating a brighter future for USC undergraduates.